Is Zuckerberg Really Yielding to Trump? The Reality is Complicated.
Meta has been undergoing a significant transformation for several years, and this change includes more than just a shift to the right.
TroibNews 
Meta’s significant announcement this morning doesn’t carry the implications that Washington appears to believe.
When Mark Zuckerberg declared that Facebook, Instagram, and Threads would halt third-party fact-checking, the political arena interpreted it as a capitulation—seeing it as a company compromising its values in favor of Donald Trump and the modern GOP’s “free speech” agenda.
Conservatives viewed this as a victory; Brendan Carr, Trump’s appointee to the Federal Communications Commission, shared a favorable meme. In contrast, liberals were alarmed, with Nicole Gill, executive director of Accountable Tech, stating in a release that it represents “a gift to Donald Trump and extremists around the world.”
Liberals worry that reduced fact-checking by the largest social media platform will further inundate the digital landscape with falsehoods or intentionally misleading content. Conservatives, who perceive moderators and fact-checkers as predominantly liberal, believe that a more relaxed stance on content oversight will yield a broader spectrum of opinions, better reflecting reality.
This information was first reported in Digital Future Daily, PMG’s afternoon newsletter focusing on the intersection of technology and power. Subscribe here.
However, the reality is that Meta's decision to sever its fact-checking partnerships is not likely to exacerbate the internet's issues with bias, argument, personal attacks, and overt propaganda. The company, mirroring trends across the tech industry, has been shifting away from a liberal approach to combating “misinformation” for several years. In 2023, Meta rolled back moderation of false claims regarding the 2020 election, and in 2019, it chose not to fact-check political advertisements.
Given the emphasis on content moderation, it’s easy to overrate its significance in the ecosystem. Although moderation decisions are often the subjects of high-profile congressional hearings and serve as ammunition for culture war discussions, what actually appears on social media platforms is ultimately determined by algorithms, largely beyond the purview of political discourse.
While Zuckerberg's announcement feels like a crucial corporate policy shift, it functions more as marketing aimed at the power structure. Underneath, it illustrates how political influences have historically shaped the public representation of these platforms' values.
Tuesday's declaration is merely the latest in a series of gestures Meta has directed toward conservatives since Trump’s reelection. Last week, the company appointed Republican lobbyist Joel Kaplan as its global chief of policy; the day before, it welcomed Ultimate Fighting Championship head Dana White—an ally of Trump, who had a significant role at the Republican National Convention—to its board. Today’s announcement noted a relocation of the company’s trust and safety team from California to Texas, in line with advocacy from right-wing tech figures like Elon Musk to establish the industry in atmospheres less liberal than Silicon Valley.
These actions have indeed shifted Meta away from the liberal model of digital governance. Yet, it's crucial to recognize that this model wasn't originally rooted in the industry’s core values; it was largely adopted under pressure in response to a politically charged context.
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election, Facebook was actively engaged in the “whole-of-society” response to online falsehoods considered partly responsible for Trump's unexpected victory. This included establishing the fact-checking partnerships Zuckerberg has since abandoned. He even apologized to Congress for Facebook’s role in the 2016 election and invited journalists to tour a “war room” designed to combat misinformation on the platform.
As the perception of Trump transitioned from an unusual presence in American politics to its fiery focal point, that defensive approach appeared increasingly inadequate—and potentially detrimental for companies like Meta, both politically and financially.
“Social media fact-checking works in theory, and the platforms that attempted it deserve more credit,” said Nu Wexler, a consultant with a background in policy communications for Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in a DFD interview. “But the politics of it are close to impossible in this climate, and it became a major pain point for the companies on Capitol Hill.”
What seemed appealing to big tech firms in 2016—fact-checking—has lost its allure in 2025. In September, even prior to Trump’s election, Zuckerberg remarked on a popular business podcast that aligning with misinformation monitors was a “political miscalculation” and a significant error.
This perspective was informed by hindsight. At the time, it appeared a matter of practicality: Contrary to the appeals for “responsible governance” or returning to “our roots around free expression,” as Zuckerberg stated today, decisions made by companies like Meta prioritize attracting and retaining users, alongside evading regulatory scrutiny similar to that in Europe.
“Responsibility” was the guiding principle a decade ago leading to Zuckerberg’s “miscalculation,” whereas today’s mantra is “freedom.” The political landscape evolves, and regardless of the rules established on platforms like Facebook or X, users have consistently demonstrated a resilient tendency to express their messages, no matter the circumstances.
Frederick R Cook contributed to this report for TROIB News
When Mark Zuckerberg declared that Facebook, Instagram, and Threads would halt third-party fact-checking, the political arena interpreted it as a capitulation—seeing it as a company compromising its values in favor of Donald Trump and the modern GOP’s “free speech” agenda.
Conservatives viewed this as a victory; Brendan Carr, Trump’s appointee to the Federal Communications Commission, shared a favorable meme. In contrast, liberals were alarmed, with Nicole Gill, executive director of Accountable Tech, stating in a release that it represents “a gift to Donald Trump and extremists around the world.”
Liberals worry that reduced fact-checking by the largest social media platform will further inundate the digital landscape with falsehoods or intentionally misleading content. Conservatives, who perceive moderators and fact-checkers as predominantly liberal, believe that a more relaxed stance on content oversight will yield a broader spectrum of opinions, better reflecting reality.
This information was first reported in Digital Future Daily, PMG’s afternoon newsletter focusing on the intersection of technology and power. Subscribe here.
However, the reality is that Meta's decision to sever its fact-checking partnerships is not likely to exacerbate the internet's issues with bias, argument, personal attacks, and overt propaganda. The company, mirroring trends across the tech industry, has been shifting away from a liberal approach to combating “misinformation” for several years. In 2023, Meta rolled back moderation of false claims regarding the 2020 election, and in 2019, it chose not to fact-check political advertisements.
Given the emphasis on content moderation, it’s easy to overrate its significance in the ecosystem. Although moderation decisions are often the subjects of high-profile congressional hearings and serve as ammunition for culture war discussions, what actually appears on social media platforms is ultimately determined by algorithms, largely beyond the purview of political discourse.
While Zuckerberg's announcement feels like a crucial corporate policy shift, it functions more as marketing aimed at the power structure. Underneath, it illustrates how political influences have historically shaped the public representation of these platforms' values.
Tuesday's declaration is merely the latest in a series of gestures Meta has directed toward conservatives since Trump’s reelection. Last week, the company appointed Republican lobbyist Joel Kaplan as its global chief of policy; the day before, it welcomed Ultimate Fighting Championship head Dana White—an ally of Trump, who had a significant role at the Republican National Convention—to its board. Today’s announcement noted a relocation of the company’s trust and safety team from California to Texas, in line with advocacy from right-wing tech figures like Elon Musk to establish the industry in atmospheres less liberal than Silicon Valley.
These actions have indeed shifted Meta away from the liberal model of digital governance. Yet, it's crucial to recognize that this model wasn't originally rooted in the industry’s core values; it was largely adopted under pressure in response to a politically charged context.
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election, Facebook was actively engaged in the “whole-of-society” response to online falsehoods considered partly responsible for Trump's unexpected victory. This included establishing the fact-checking partnerships Zuckerberg has since abandoned. He even apologized to Congress for Facebook’s role in the 2016 election and invited journalists to tour a “war room” designed to combat misinformation on the platform.
As the perception of Trump transitioned from an unusual presence in American politics to its fiery focal point, that defensive approach appeared increasingly inadequate—and potentially detrimental for companies like Meta, both politically and financially.
“Social media fact-checking works in theory, and the platforms that attempted it deserve more credit,” said Nu Wexler, a consultant with a background in policy communications for Facebook, Twitter, and Google, in a DFD interview. “But the politics of it are close to impossible in this climate, and it became a major pain point for the companies on Capitol Hill.”
What seemed appealing to big tech firms in 2016—fact-checking—has lost its allure in 2025. In September, even prior to Trump’s election, Zuckerberg remarked on a popular business podcast that aligning with misinformation monitors was a “political miscalculation” and a significant error.
This perspective was informed by hindsight. At the time, it appeared a matter of practicality: Contrary to the appeals for “responsible governance” or returning to “our roots around free expression,” as Zuckerberg stated today, decisions made by companies like Meta prioritize attracting and retaining users, alongside evading regulatory scrutiny similar to that in Europe.
“Responsibility” was the guiding principle a decade ago leading to Zuckerberg’s “miscalculation,” whereas today’s mantra is “freedom.” The political landscape evolves, and regardless of the rules established on platforms like Facebook or X, users have consistently demonstrated a resilient tendency to express their messages, no matter the circumstances.
Frederick R Cook contributed to this report for TROIB News
